Biden--Too Senile to Stand Trial (SC)--But NOT Too Senile to be President?

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
a reply to: Boomer1947

VP Biden = NO ability to automatically declassify.
POTUS Trump = total ability to automatically declassify.

You really need to read the text of the Espionage Act of 1917, which is the relevant law under which Trump, Pence, or Biden could possibly have been charged. That's because in all 3 cases, their possession of classified documents happened AFTER they had left office and were just civilians again. The Espionage Act makes no reference whatever to "classified information", it refers only to "defense information", which may or may not be classified as well. In other words, if a document is still classified, it is also by definition "defense information". If a document has been recently declassified, it still may contain "defense information". That's why the subpoena demanded that Trump turn over any documents "bearing classification markings". That would cover any document that was still classified, or any document that may have been recently declassified. In either case, the former POTUS or VPOTUS wouldn't own those documents. In all cases, they remain government property after the former tenant of the POTUS or VPOTUS office leaves office and they are required to turn it over to a government agent authorized to receive it. Therefore, the fact that a POTUS had the ability the declassify most (but not all) documents when he was POTUS has no bearing on cases brought under the Espionage Act. And BTW, neither Trump nor his lawyers are claiming in his Florida case that he actually DID declassify any of the documents he was found with.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You didn't answer the question.

Big shock.

States don't get to decide on constitutional rights.

boom

Is it time for house Republicans to again show how incompetent they are by failing a vote for the impeachment of Merrick Garland?

Hawley, who also served as attorney general of Missouri from 2017 to 2019, said Friday that Garland "can’t have it both ways" by not charging the president and also declining to recommend invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which authorizes the vice president and a majority of the president's cabinet or Congress to decide whether the president is unable to perform their duties.

"I'm calling on [Garland] publicly now to do what I think is required under the law in the Constitution . . . either charge the president, or he will go to the cabinet and tell them, ‘I believe we have to invoke the 25th Amendment.’ He's got to do one or the other," Hawley told Fox News Digital in an interview.

"If he doesn't, it will just confirm what everybody thinks, which is that there are two tiers of justice and that Garland himself is completely complicit in the corruption of this administration," Hawley said.

"He concluded that the elements of a crime were present, namely that the president had willfully retained and disclosed classified information, so he knew it. I mean, the report makes it very clear he knew that it was classified information, this was done over years and decades — not just a couple of months — and he willfully did it," says Hawley.

"But he ultimately recommends against prosecution, not because he didn't do it, but because, basically, Biden is mentally unfit to be prosecuted. Because he doesn't think that he can get a jury to ultimately convict, because the president is so mentally unstable," Hawley added.

fox

Can Garland and his DOJ have it both ways? Claim that Joe Biden is not mentally fit to stand trial; but is mentally fit to run the country? One thing is clear the Republicans aren't going to be able to do anything about it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But states also have constitutional rights, and the right to exercise those rights. Right?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

But states also have constitutional rights, and the right to exercise those rights. Right?

Individuals also have constitutional rights.

You are advocating the denial of constitutional rights for the individual.

Another big shock.

originally posted by: Lovelyldy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RickinVa

I can't believe that's the best Hur's got! LOL

In the meantime, 27 times Trump can’t remember

Why wasn’t Biden arrested for mishandling classified documents ??

He wasn't arrested because he voluntarily turned the documents over as soon as they were discovered.

He wasn't CHARGED with any crime because Hur was following the guidelines of the US Attorney's Handbook, as he was required to do. The Handbook states that a US Attorney (or Special Counsel, in this case) should only seek to bring charges if he believes he can obtain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt in front of a jury and can sustain that conviction against appeals. Obtaining a conviction would require proving to a jury beyond reasonable doub what Biden's mental state was at the time some of the alleged actions took place. That's the part he didn't think he could do.

a reply to: Boomer1947

So he stole something, many things, but because he said "here they are", you don't get arrested?

WTF!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boomer1947

So he stole something, many things, but because he said "here they are", you don't get arrested?

WTF!

Read the Espionage Act of 1917. In order to be convicted under that act, an individual has to meet several criteria. Probably the most relevant one here is that the individual "willfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same [i.e., "defense information"] AND fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it". Both Biden and Pence delivered the information on demand to an officer entitled to receive it and Trump did not.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Spare me.

Joey kept his "documents" in an unsecured, unlocked location for years.

Covered by his son who had ties to Communist China, Russia, and eastern European nations.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Cop - Where is the coc aine?
Perp - Don't know
Cop - C'mon....
Perp - Ok, it is at my house and my office and another place and...another place and maybe one more.
Cop - Ok......so you willfully had coc aine in your house?
Perp - Yes

This is not hard to figure out.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Did he have a legal basis for the items he had?

a reply to: Boomer1947

Your credibility is zero.

Stop with the laughable excuses.

a reply to: Boomer1947

So you're not throwing Uncle joe under the bus?

Make up your mind. Or are you waiting for orders?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boomer1947

Spare me.

Joey kept his "documents" in an unsecured, unlocked location for years.

Covered by his son who had ties to Communist China, Russia, and eastern European nations.

So did Trump. Biden turned his over when demanded. Trump didn't.

Why is it that Trump and his supporters just really don't care about what the law actually says?

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boomer1947

Spare me.

Joey kept his "documents" in an unsecured, unlocked location for years.

Covered by his son who had ties to Communist China, Russia, and eastern European nations.

So did Trump. Biden turned his over when demanded. Trump didn't.

Why is it that Trump and his supporters just really don't care about what the law actually says?

Quick question, was Biden president when he stole the documents?

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boomer1947

Spare me.

Joey kept his "documents" in an unsecured, unlocked location for years.

Covered by his son who had ties to Communist China, Russia, and eastern European nations.

So did Trump. Biden turned his over when demanded. Trump didn't.

Why is it that Trump and his supporters just really don't care about what the law actually says?

It's quite simple. Turning over stolen property doesn't absolve you of having the stolen property.

I imagine you know this as well. Trouble is, you're intellectually dishonest and can't hold Biden to the same common sense standard.


But I value your entertainment value regardless.

originally posted by: MauiWaui
a reply to: Degradation33

I place my bet on Gavin Newsom.

Second line.

They'd have a hell of a lot more viable candidate.

And once you get used to Faux-Socialism, Neo-Marxism, whatever you want to call it, it's not that bad actually.

You get Medi-Cal if you are up to 138% poverty, which for a family of 4 is $69,375, this is also the EBT cut-off, and the reduced rent cut-off.

Unless you're sickened by sanctuary nanny states, if so, this place can be a quasi-communist sh*tscape.

But if you have an affinity for The Nordic Model, or a state's attempt at European Socialism, it's like "another country".

I'm rather ambivalent towards the model. I am curious how they are going to make it work without sustained growth or yet higher taxes. Our surpluses are growth contingent, so unless there's a plan to ask for all America's immigrants and then persuade them to take out small business loans, it looks like we are pandering to China for growth.

The point is, I don't think most of the Western, middle, and lower half of the country want our state's voted for method. We do. I especially like our constitution's added protections, AND NOTHING BETTER F*CKING HAPPEN TO THEM, but others hate our method, especially how we sustain our economy with revenue from growth and higher taxes.

🤣🤤🤣🤤🤣

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boomer1947

So he stole something, many things, but because he said "here they are", you don't get arrested?

WTF!

He stole (yes, stole) many documents as a Senator (between 1973 and 2009).
He had no declassification ability as a senator.
He kept these stolen docs in his possession for decades.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You are advocating the denial of constitutional rights for the individual.

The People don't have the right to say who is going to be on the ballot, let alone if an insurrectionist is allowed to be on the ballot. The RNC and the DNC already took those rights from the people, or more like the people gave their rights to the RNC and the DNC. Will SCOTUS take away any right for states to police the parties' candidates?